Header

31 Members of Congress Blast Fed's Crackdown on Online Lending

Share this Story

A harshly worded letter criticizing a federal crackdown on online lenders who serve “tens of millions of low-income Americans” likely will land on the desks of Attorney General Eric Holder and Martin Gruenberg, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Without mentioning the 16 online Indian-owned companies targeted as part of a cease and desist order to stop online loans by the state of New York earlier this month, the letter, dated Aug. 22 and signed by 31 members of Congress, demands that the government crackdown stop.

Citing harm to the poorest Americans – the usual customers of the online loans because banks and other financial institutions will not grant them loans or credit cards -- the letter sharply criticized recent federal actions.

The Congress members, all Republicans, called the shutdown efforts “intimidating” and harmful to low-income American households that live “paycheck to paycheck.” The letter said that most people who resort to the online loans have no other short-term lending sources in emergencies. The letter raised the specter of illegal loan sharks preying on the poor, saying shutting down online lenders “could force them (online borrowers) to unregulated and unsafe alternatives that are much more expensive.”

Barry Brandon, executive director of the Native American Financial Services Association, said closing online lending businesses owned by Indian tribes also would have devastating consequences in tribal communities. NAFSA represents numerous tribal lenders. Brandon said that as much as a quarter of the same tribes’ operational budgets comes from online lending firms they operate legally.

The critical letter from Congress members to the Attorney General and head of the FDIC is the latest development in the month-long public relations disaster for federal regulators. The crisis appears to be one more glaring indication that there is no comprehension or compassion for how poor families struggle to get emergency loans in America either by large financial institutions or government regulators.

“More than one in four American households conducts some or all of their financial transactions outside the mainstream banking system,” the letter noted, citing a 2011 national survey by the FDIC.

“Your actions to ‘choke off’ short-term lenders by changing the structure of the financial system are outside your federal mandate,” the letter noted.

The 31 members of Congress said the federal agencies should “promptly suspend any activities” that would shutdown legal online lenders.

One of the tactics used in New York earlier this month and in other efforts to shutdown online lending companies has been to issue cease and desist orders to banks and payment processors who legally handle online lenders money transfers to consumers.

After one such payment processor refused to handle online loan money transfers last week, 300 people who work for an online lending company in Tennessee were fired and the online lender shut down.

Brandon said that the income from Indian-owned online lending companies to the tribes, which function as sovereign nations within the U.S., can ill-afford to lose for schools, health care and housing on economically depressed Indian lands. Indian communities have already suffered losses of $552.7 million so far from sequestration of the federal budget, cuts which occurred despite assurances from the Obama Administration that guaranteed federal support for essential services to the tribes granted in treaties and agreements would be exempt from sequestration.

Other low-income Americans have also felt sequestration cuts in health care funding, support for public schools, public services, and civilian jobs in the military. Studies indicate that most people who resort to online loans use them for large medical expenses, emergency car repairs, and essentials like rent and food during periods of unemployment. Online lenders charge higher interest and penalties than conventional bank loans and credit cards for which most poor borrowers are ineligible. Online lenders are subject to state and federal regulation.

In recent years there have been prosecutions and convictions for fraudulent online lending practices, some involving companies that charged consumers what amounted to 300 to 1,000 percent interest when they did not pay back their short-term loans on time.

The letter from the 31 members of Congress notes that “as with any industry, there are bad actors in online and non-depository lending. We support efforts to protect consumers with disclosure rules… by giving them full information.”

Such disclosure by banks and other mortgage lenders surely would have saved millions of Americans from losing their over-mortgaged homes and spared them billions in losses of property and foreclosure costs. Why, in 2013, when almost no bankers and mortgage company officials, including federal directors of government lending companies, have been prosecuted or even penalized for their billions of dollars in mortgage frauds, are much smaller online lenders being attacked?

Agencies of federal government, despite their denials, and the former federal prosecutor Benjamin Lawsky, the new czar of NY’s Department of Financial Services, continue to ruthlessly attempt to shut down lenders of last resort to the poorest Americans.

Wednesday (Aug. 20), the Native American Financial Services Administration (NAFSA) sued the state of New York in federal district court demanding that the state stop trying to shut down tribe-owned online lending companies. New York’s attack on 35 online lenders, including at least 16 tribal lending companies, was filed Aug. 6 by Lawsky. The state has not filed a response to the lawsuit.

John Shotton, chairman of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe and chairman of NAFSA, said he hoped the feds were not targeting online lending operated by the tribes. The key legal precedent governing tribe-owned businesses, including online lenders, is sovereign immunity, which recognizes the tribes as sovereign nations within the U.S. with complete control over their lands, businesses, laws and governance. Sovereign immunity was guaranteed in numerous treaties with the U.S. government in exchange for the surrender of vast tracts of Indian land and natural resources and has repeatedly been upheld in the Supreme Court and in numerous states.

The letter from Congress members cited other legal constraints that prohibit unauthorized federal attacks on online lenders including the Dodd-Frank Act, which they noted “acknowledged the need for short-term credit products and did not try to limit online lenders or storefront operators’ ability to offer such products.”

They said neither Dodd-Frank, nor any other law has given the Department of Justice or any other federal agency the authority to “take away the very air” that online lenders “need to survive.”

Earlier Shotton disclosed that the DOJ has invited the tribal representatives to be part of the new DOJ Consumer Protection Working Group. Shotton added, “Tribal governments share your dedication to protecting consumers by offering responsible financial services products and services.”

It appears that at least the 31 members of Congress who sent the letter to Frimpong’s boss, Attorney General Holder, were not convinced that the matter is resolved. Their letter demanded that the crackdown on online lenders stop immediately. Signers of the letter to Holder and Gruenberg include:

Jane Daugherty, former associate professor of journalism at Florida International University, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Miami School of Communication. An investigative reporter and editor for 25 years, she is a four-time winner of the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for coverage of the disadvantaged and was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist in commentary in 1994. Her great-great-grandmother was a member of the Creek nation who fled Indian removal.

You need to be logged in in order to post commentsPlease use the log in option at the bottom of this page

Comment *

6

POST A COMMENT

Comments

'sovereign immunity' does not change the FACT that online or any other 'lending' is usury...and I would love to know just exactly when and where native American tribal entities started participating in it...puts us one step below banks and the mafia...

Jane put it to rest... If the online lenders charged a reasonable interest rate that would be one thing... ! How can poor people afford 400-750% interest??? Why should the tribes be able to benefit off of people who can't afford to pay these loans back? When they can't they are brutalized by collectors who are ruthless . Open your eyes! When the tribes can lend within the states usuary limits then fine! Otherwise they should be shut down and find another way to make money!!!! Quit being a bunch of cry babies... They all have made loads of money!

you know its a two edged sword, on one hand the tribes are sovereign and states should not interfere by law and should not seek biased decisions to change it
on the other hand, these tribally owned payday lenders should use reasonable rates and practice so they don't look like loan sharks that are immune from law. they should realize as these attacks continue it will eventually erode more of our sovereign status across the land, and they should bring their interest rates down voluntarily and not risk the loss of another bit of sovereignty for all tribes, for their personal greed.
by bringing interest rates down they could have stopped these attacks and still kept the doors open, and better served the poor who utilize them, but just get deeper in debt and despair paying the high interest.
two years ago my wife had to travel to new mexico unexpectedly to help a sister. we didn't have the money so she applied at western sky and was approved for $1500...so only got $1000 because western sky took $500 off the top and sold the loan to another company where we paid $125 every two weeks, after 10 months and already having paid $2500 we decideded to pay it off fully...it cost us another $1500 to clear it...we received $1000 and it cost us $4000 in ten months to pay it back
should tribes be fighting for the right to scam not only other people , but tribal members like ourselves?

These loans are not meant for everybody, you take it for whatever emergency, than pay it ALL back within 6 mos. if you cant afford it, don't take it, everything is right in front of your face, interest rates, etc, but people still take them, because they need it, what about the banks and credit card companies, etc who practically crashed this economy?

Open your eyes.... everything is right in front of your faces...NO ONE PUTS A GUN TO PEOPLE'S HEAD AND MAKES THEM TAKE THESE LOANS OUT!!! Take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming it on the lenders! They are grown adults making their own decisions, if you don't like the rates don't take out the loan, it's that simple!